Jump to content

Talk:Federal subjects of Russia/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Article should be renamed Constituent entities of the Russian Federation

Official Russian government websites use the term “constituent entity of the Russian Federation” as the translation of “субъекта Российской Федерации” in the Constitution of Russia:

(See Articles 5, 11, 65-78, 85, 95, 102, 104, 125, 129, 134-137.) I know there are some unofficial translations of the Constitution, like the one at Wikisource, which translate “субъекта” into English as “subject”, but the official websites at the above links all use “constituent entity” in their English translations of the Constitution. The term “constituent entities of the Russian Federation” has a large number of Google hits [1] in English. At the United Nations, where English and Russian are both official languages, translators use the term “constituent entity” in English corresponding to “субъекта” in Russian. The English word “subject” has many different meanings but is not generally understood by anglophones to mean “one of the units of a federation”. Essentially “subject” is a false friend of “субъекта”. The article (currently named Federal subjects of Russia) should be renamed Constituent entities of the Russian Federation), pursuant to Wikipedia:Article titles. Please indicate your agreement or disagreement here. —Mathew5000 (talk) 20:09, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Have you had a chance to review previous discussions on this matter (above on this page)? "Federal subjects" can be seen in the English-language literature on the (pardon the pun) subject quite often and is by now a fairly established, if somewhat specialized, term. Even if the level of usage of the term "constituent entities" were the same as that of the term "federal subjects" (something I am not entirely convinced of, based on what I've read), moving the article to a title of "equal value", so to speak, is of marginal benefit (not to mention the sheer amount of cleanup this would create). To top it off, what makes you believe that the Russian "official" translators have better command of the English language than the native speakers who authored academic works on this topic?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); December 29, 2011; 20:25 (UTC)
The overriding consideration is that the term “federal subject” is not generally recognizable to English-speakers as meaning “a geopolitical unit belonging to a federation”. On the contrary, the term “federal subject of [a country]” would usually be taken to mean something else, namely an individual with a status comparable to “British subject”. Yes, a few English-language books about Russia use the term “subject” to mean one of the constituent entities, but you will not find the term “subject” used in that sense with reference to any other federation or federations generally. All the criteria at Wikipedia:Article titles indicate an article move in this case. —Mathew5000 (talk) 21:12, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
You are of course correct that this term is not generally recognizable as meaning "a geopolitical unit belonging to a federation". It is, however, perfectly recognizable as meaning "a geopolitical unit belonging to the Russian Federation", to which a bevy of academic sources is sufficient evidence. No one is suggesting that we use this term generically (indeed, I would be the first in line to shoot such a suggestion down). This article, however, is limited in scope to Russia and Russia only, and in that context it is a perfectly acceptable term.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); December 29, 2011; 21:37 (UTC)
First, the sources need to be referenced in the article (at least some of them, if not the whole bevy!). Whether or not the title of the article is changed, the article needs a brief, sourced discussion of the terminology in English. Second, I disagree that this sense of the term “federal subject” is “perfectly recognizable”; on the contrary it is quite unusual. It is preferable to use a more natural and recognizable term. A better article title (like the one I have suggested) would immediately convey what the article is about. The term “constituent entity” is in use by both the Government of Russia and the United Nations as an English-language counterpart of “субъекта”; it is recognizable, natural, unambiguous, and precise. —Mathew5000 (talk) 07:30, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Sources are required to support facts, not the choice of terminology. I don't see any other articles where the article's title is referenced (or is expected to)! Of course, if the choice of terminology itself were discussed, then sources would be needed to support that discussion, but since currently there is nothing of the sort in the article, there is nothing to source. Second, the term is perfectly recognizable to anyone who ever read anything on the political structure of Russia, and as such it is a natural choice (and more common, too; check this and this, for example, and note that these aren't even refined to be confined in scope to just Russia! Once they are refined, the "federal subject(s)" lead is even more obvious). Nor is the term "federal subjects" ambiguous in any way—as far as I know, the term is only used to refer to the political entities comprising the Russian Federation—which makes it the most precise choice as well. Indeed, it is the term "constituent entities" that's imprecise and ambiguous, since it has other meanings!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); December 30, 2011; 20:19 (UTC)
Sources are required to support the article title, as discussed in the Wikipedia:Article titles policy. Where there is varying English-language usage respecting the name of the article, it is appropriate to have a brief, sourced discussion of the point; for example:
As to your links to Google Ngrams, please have a closer look at what type of hits they are enumerating [2] — mostly American civil-litigation texts discussing “federal subject matter jurisdiction”. Thus it is not a useful comparison for our purpose here. As to your other points, obviously the two of us are in disagreement so instead of repeating the arguments above, I will list at Wikipedia:Third Opinion. —Mathew5000 (talk) 22:59, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Coming from 3O, I think Mathew5000 has made a better argument here. The official Russian English term according to the evidence provided does appear to be Constituent Entity. The Google Ngrams do seem to be irrelevant based on what is being picked up, and making lots of work by moving it to another title is not a good reason to not make the move. I have also read through the previous discussions, and I would have to agree with Johnbod that there may be some WP:OWN issues here. I would suggest starting a WP:RM to see whether this is backed up by the community. Number 57 23:30, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Matthew is of course correct, and argues the case well. Most native English speakers who have been involved in this discussion in the past have objected to the translation of "Subjecti" in Russian as "Subjects" in English. It is a false friend and a miss translation. The stumbling block I had earlier was in finding written evidence to support this natural feeling. Matthew has now supplied it, which ought to settle the question. "Subjects" should not be used as the English translation. — cwmacdougall 01:00, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus in this discussion to make this mass move, although most of the individual moves if supported by sourcing and consensus do not need administrator intervention. Mike Cline (talk) 15:40, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

– The term “constituent entity” of a federation is more natural and recognizable for English-speakers than “federal subject”. The term “constituent entity of the Russian Federation” is used by the Government of Russia and by the United Nations. In particular, the English translation of the Constitution of Russia on official government web sites uses “constituent entity of the Russian Federation” as the translation of “субъекта Российской Федерации”. relisted--Mike Cline (talk) 13:09, 14 January 2012 (UTC) Mathew5000 (talk) 17:55, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

  • Support. "Subjects" is a false friend and a mistranslation of the Russian word. "Constituent Entities" is much better. — cwmacdougall, 2 January 2012
  • Support. I would even support the constituents in most of these, where it cannot be mistaken for "voters." Subnumine (talk) 00:30, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose. That the term "federal subject" is extensively used in the English-language academic sources on the topic is an easily demonstrable fact, whether some like it or not. Trying to find a "better term" is nothing short of original research—and note how none of the support votes so far make an actual case beyond it's better.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); January 3, 2012; 15:28 (UTC)
  • Further note. I specifically opposed the move of city of federal subject significance to "city-districts of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation". "City districts" are the districts of the cities, while "cities of federal subject significance" are the administrative divisions of the federal subjects (whatever you call them). These are two completely unrelated concepts, which makes me doubt the competency of this RM even more.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); January 3, 2012; 15:33 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Ezhiki. Also, "constituent entity" is a longer and more complex expression. Let's keep it simple, and let's not conduct original research by inventing our own translations of terms used by the state. Nanobear (talk) 16:40, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Obvious and strong Oppose per Ezhiki. Google books give me 450,000 hits for "Federal subjects of Russia" and only "36,200" for "Constituent entities of Russia", while general google search gives 1,010,000 and 3,320 respectively, so the term "federal subject" is a clear winner. And there is nothing wrong with certain countries using specific terminology - we say "U.S. states", "Counties of England" or "Departments of France" not "constituent entities of the U.S.", "constituent entities of England" or the "constituent entities of France". GreyHood Talk 17:49, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Also, I'm of course opposed to the plainly incorrect "city-districts" name, and I'm against the usage of the "Russian Federation" instead of the shorter, more common and more convenient "Russia" (the names are equal by the constitution and there is no reason why we should use the longer one; little to no articles on wiki use the longer one). GreyHood Talk 17:07, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Agree with Ezhiki and Greyhood. Also, "federal subjects" is clearly more precise -- a constituent entity could be anything to a casual reader: an indigenous Far Eastern group, a city, a military district, etc. An entity is a thing, and a constituent is something constituting something else, but a "federal subject" is a phrase that immediatelly makes clear that this is a specially-used term that refers to a particular level of political administration in the federal system. Moreover, this recently-published Routledge textbook on Russian administration (Ch. 7) uses the term "federal subjects" in its discussion of the Russian Constitution and there is no shortage of other sources. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 18:38, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Those claiming this is OR should read the discussion above, where it is noted that the phrase "constituent entity" is actually from the Russian government's own translation of the constitution. Number 57 23:04, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment. I've clarified my remark on "original research" below.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); January 4, 2012; 16:34 (UTC)
  • Obvious and strong support to rename, but not to the clumsy and not much better name. The proper term per all Russia-related COE documents (which Russia would obviously insure refer to it and its constituent parts properly) is "federated entities". In the English language, "subjects" are individuals under some authority. "Federal subjects"? Plenty of Google matches (lots of Wiki mirrors), but that's no reason to propagate incorrect terminology as well as poor and misleading English. Federated entities of Russia would be fine. Constituent_entities_of_the_Russian_Federation is hugely clumsy and still incorrect as it only implies the constituent entities are ones which are, indeed, considered "federated." PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 03:51, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment. By COE do you mean the Council of Europe? Please provide some sources. As far as I can tell, the Council of Europe official web site mostly uses "constituent entities of the Russian Federation" [3] so I'm not sure what you mean. —Mathew5000 (talk) 09:57, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
    • Response Try Google Books... [4]. If you search for constituent subjects similarly, not exact phrase, it points out the issue with "subjects" meaning something primarily quite different in English despite the seeming equivalence of words; you will also note cases where it's phrased as "constituent subjects", with quotes, indicating a literal transl[iter]ation as opposed to a translation which refers to the entities in descriptive English language terminology which appropriately and unambiguously characterizes the relationship. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 02:22, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Comment. Hellerick, the whole point is that "Federal Subjects" is not at all close to the Russian, any more than the English word "Magazine" is close to the Russian word "Магазин" (shop); both examples are false friends, that sound the same but aren't at all close in meaning. That is why the translator Matthew cited says "subjects" should be avoided as a translation. cwmacdougall 01:35, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
It is not a false friend. The term is new for both English and Russian, it's "province" meaning is not more justified in Russian than in English, for both Russians and Englishmen it's something to be accustomed to. Hellerick (talk) 09:29, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
You agree it's a new usage in English? Precisely, that is our objection: it's not Plain English. The Russians can invent a new word in Russian if they want, but not in English; when translated, it should be translated into Plain English, or at least the translation used here should be Plain English not jargon and not a false friend. Cwmacdougall, 9:43, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
It is not even true that “субъект федерации” was a new term in Russian in the early 1990s. Using Google Books you can easily find the term in earlier works such as on page 38 of this 1954 book (about the development of the USSR) or page 182 of this 1968 tome (referring to the federal structure of Mexico). —Mathew5000 (talk) 19:30, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Comment. That search in Google Scholar is flawed because it picks up a large number of articles on the American law of civil procedure, where “federal subject” appears as part of the term “federal subject matter jurisdiction”[5]. I have found that searching in Google Scholar yields more results for “constituent entities of the Russian federation” and its variants than “federal subjects of Russia” and its variants: 263 vs. 150. Mathew5000 (talk) 19:29, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Federal subjects still gets around 316 results, which is still more than constituent entity. In English, "federal subject" is somewhat established as the most WP:COMMONNAME for these subdivisions of Russia. Y u no be Russavia ლ(ಠ益ಠლ) 03:18, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:
  • In response to GreyHood, the search engine counts you mention are not valid. For one thing, any search for "federal subjects of Russia" is going to capture a large number of mirrors and copies of Wikipedia itself. (Even searching Google Books will hit "books" that are reprints of Wikipedia articles under licence.) For another, the proposed article name is "constituent entities of the Russian Federation", which has many more search engine hits than the term you searched, "constituent entities of Russia". With respect to the other articles you mentioned, U.S. state is not parallel to what we are discussing here; a better example would be Political divisions of the United States. —Mathew5000 (talk) 03:34, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Ezhiki argues in his "oppose" comment above that the proposal is "original research". It isn't; you can find written sources for both translations, so we have to choose which to use. This usage of "subjects" is not in any dictionary that anyone has cited (not correctly cited anyway) and it sounds wrong to most of the native English speakers in this discussion; it is a false friend. Mistranslations do sometimes appear in written sources, but the mistranslation is being corrected generally, and in particular the Russian government now translates the Russian word as "constituent entities"; we should too. -- cwmacdougall, 4 January 2012.
  • With regards to the above, it seems I was not entirely clear to some what I meant when I made my "original research" remark. There is, of course, no doubt that the federal subjects of Russia are every now and then referred to as "constituent entities". They are also, every now and then, referred to as "provinces", "territories", "regions", "members of the Federation", and a multitude of other variants. The problem I have with this RM, however, is that people are trying to push one variant they really like at the expense of a more precise, more common, more specific, and a perfectly valid term. Saying that only one of these terms is the best and the rest are somehow inferior is original research, and no party supporting the move has shown any evidence to the contrary. Stating that the term "federal subjects" is a "false friend", "mistranslation", "sounds wrong" is a personal opinion of the editors, contradicted by numerous academic sources which use this allegedly "mistranslated" term just fine (and not just occasionally!). Not only that, in the context of Russia it is actually used more often than the term "constituent entities". Now, I was unable to reproduce the results of Greyhood's research (and I hope he'll comment here on the method he used), but a moderately refined gbooks search shows the preponderance of the currently used term over the proposed alternative: 59 for "federal subject(s) of Russia" vs. 8 for "constituent entity (entities) of Russia"; 1,880 for "federal subject(s)" +Russia vs. 1,040 for "constituent entity (entities)" +Russia. Note that I did take out Books LLC, a Wikipedia re-publisher which affects the gbooks results the most.

    These are not all of my objections to the supporters' rationale, by the way, but this post is already becoming too long. Suffice it to say, Wikipedia never gives more weight to the officially used terms over the academic sources. Officially used terms should, of course, be factored in, but their weight is about the same as the weight of other reliable sources.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); January 4, 2012; 16:32 (UTC)

Apparently I used search without quotes. But judging by your results with reprints taken out, the situation doesn't change much. GreyHood Talk 16:59, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
    • About the Google searches, even though you've excluded Books LLC there remain a number of hits which use content copied from Wikipedia. Please just scroll down through your search results and you will see this. It is better to exclude the word Wikipedia entirely. The other thing is, when a Google search tells you it has found "about 1,880 results", that estimation is generally too high. You have to page through to the last page of search results to get the accurate count rather than the estimate. Moreover you have searched on the term "constituent entities of Russia" which is not used nearly as often as "constituent entities of the Russian Federation". Here are the results of appropriate Google Books searches:
    • 33 results for "federal subject(s) of Russia/the Russian Federation" vs. 102 results for "constituent entit(y/ies) of Russia/the Russian Federation"
    • (Even here, where both searches expressly exclude the word “Wikipedia”, the 33 results for federal subjects include at least 2 copies of Wikipedia.)
    • 292 results for "federal subject(s)" + Russia/Russian since 1997 vs. 171 results for "constituent entit(y/ies)" + Russia/Russian since 1997
    • (Limited to books published since 1997 to cut down on irrelevancies, although there still remain some in both lists.)
    • It is true that a greater number of books use the “federal subject” terminology than “constituent entity”, but the true results are much closer than you suggested. Mathew5000 (talk) 20:20, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
    • In response to Ezhiki's elaboration of what he meant by "original research", I would refer you to the article “On Legal Terminology, the Jury Is Still Out: A Review of ‘Translating Legal Russian into English’” in SlavFile, the publication of the Slavic Languages Division of the American Translators Association, which expressly recommends using “constituent entity” rather than “subject”. This is the opinion of a professional translator writing for other professional translators, not simply the preference of some random Wikipedia editors. Mathew5000 (talk) 20:44, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Good point, Matthew: the SlavFile article (page 20) emphasizes that "Subjects" should be avoided because it is not Plain English, also a Wikipedia requirement. cwmacdougall, 4 January 2012.
Wikipedia uses terminology used by reliable sources, not opinions of individuals. Once the term "federal subjects" is overtaken by "constituent entities" (or some other alternative) in the academic sources, we should start thinking about switching too, but according to Matthew's own research above it is not the case. If you think such approach wrong, you should be arguing the general Wikipedia policy, not trying to cherry pick an article the title of which you especially dislike.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); January 6, 2012; 21:25 (UTC)
  • Ëzhiki raised specifically the article title City of federal subject significance. This current title appears to be truly original research as defined in the Wikipedia policy. Are there any reliable sources that use the English phrase “city/cities of federal subject significance”? I can't find any, either in Google Books [6] or Google News [7], while general Google Search [8] gives 65 results every single one of which is derived from Wikipedia. The new title proposed in this RM for that article, City-districts of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation is not ideal but clearer than its present title. I agree that the term “city district” (without a hyphen) generally refers to districts of a city, but it can also refer to a city that is a district of a constituent entity. For example, at en.welcome2russia.ru/russia/?id=2219 we find “Vladivostok city district covers an area of the peninsula Muraviev-Amur to the town of Labor....” Here the term “Vladivostok city district” refers not to a district of the city Vladivostok, but to Vladivostok the city as a district of Primorsky Krai. All that being said, there may be better titles for that article than the one I've proposed. (Maybe “Cities under the jurisdiction of a constituent entity of the Russian Federation”.) In any event the current article title “city of federal subject significance” is opaque and unnatural. —Mathew5000 (talk) 01:14, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
    • If you read WP:AT, you'll see that Wikipedia has two kinds of article titles—those which name the article's subject, and those which are a description of the topic. Nowhere it is claimed that "city of federal subject significance" falls into the former category. The title is clearly descriptive, and constitutes no more "original research" than titles such as history of the Jews in Salzburg or State of Vietnam referendum, 1955, neither of which has too many hits in gbooks. But as a descriptive title, it is damn near ideal, even if I say so myself. As per WP:AT, titles should "resemble titles for similar articles, precisely identify the subject, be short, be natural, and be recognizable". "City of federal subject significance" closely resembles the title of an article about a related concept (town of district significance); it consistently uses the terminology already used elsewhere in Wikipedia ("federal subject"); it is short, precise, and unambiguous (unlike the proposed alternative); it is close to the original Russian term; and it is no less recognizable than any other alternative one may come up with (not to mention the fact that any other alternative would be just as artificial as the current version). And coming up with any alternative (including the current title) is a challenge, both because of systemic bias (just because English-language sources tend to overlook the concept does not mean it does not exist) and because the concept is defined (and called) somewhat differently in different federal subjects of Russia.

      Regarding the "city-district" alternative, the axe I especially want to grind is that the term is so misleading. Yes, one can find a few sources which refer to this concept as "city district", but they would be overwhelmed by the sources which use the term "city district" to refer to, well, the districts of a city. There are also sources which use "city district" to refer to the urban okrugs, to the suburban areas of the city, to microdistricts, and to who knows what else (and by the way, I am surprised you would use something like this, which is written in half-broken English and contains several factual errors, as your argument. Just because a clueless translator chose a particular term does not mean we should automatically use it as well just because it was published in an official source!). A newspaper article, a book, or even a paper encyclopedia do not necessarily have to simultaneously cover several different concepts all of which can be referred to as "city districts", so they don't usually have any problem with the choice of a term (and neither do their readers, as long as the context makes it clear what concept is being discussed). Wikipedia, on the other hand, is an encyclopedia which strives to be as comprehensive as possible, and the article on, say, Vladivostok, would have to mention the five districts of that city, the fact that the city is administratively incorporated as a "city under krai jurisdiction", and that it is municipally incorporated as an urban okrug. Imagine what mess we'll have if we'll start referring to all three aspects as "city districts"; just because each individual term sounds too foreign.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); January 6, 2012; 21:25 (UTC)

Interesting suggestion, but to my ear "Federated Entities" is not any more correct or simple than "Constituent Entities" and we have sources for the latter (in either case you can add "of Russia" or "of the Russian Federation" as required for clarity, so there is no difference on that point). cwmacdougall, 8.06, 5 January 2012.
See what you think of the Google books search results I suggest/reference above. Unfortunately "constituent entities" of the "Russian Federation" only implies the said entities are the federated ones at the federal level. Federation already indicates constituency (and at what level), so what sounds better to you seems to me both a tautology and as leaving things a bit open to interpretation. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 02:27, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Relisting comment - If editors are suggesting alternative titles other than the explicit titles listed in the nomination, they should be explicit with their suggestions and refactor the discussion so that editors can weigh-in properly on the new alternatives.--Mike Cline (talk) 13:09, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
I think AjaxSmack is mistaken in thinking the proposal does not make it clear we are dealing "with first-level units". Both "Federated Entities" and "Constituent Entities" are better than the non-English mistranslation of "subjects", so I wouldn't argue too hard, but we do have sources for "Constituent Entities" and it does imply the first level divisions, because it speaks of the "constituents" of the Federation, ie the parts of the Federation. cwmacdougall, 14 January 2012.
Taking the larger view of the CIS, we are talking about infra-State entities within the Russian Federation (federated entities) and provinces or potentially autonomous entities in the other CIS member states. I do sincerely believe that Federated entities of Russia is the most appropriate English-language title, regardless of the "closest" English language words to the Russian words (i.e., phonetically equivalent but not equivalent in primary English language meaning). PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 18:30, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
I also think we overuse "Russian Federation" a bit where "Russia" does just fine. We know it's not "Tsarist" or "Bolshevik" or "Soviet" anymore. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 19:04, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
I did also save a snippet I found, I'd have to re-find the source... "...the "subjects of the federation," as the federated entities are called in the Russian Constitution..." (my emphasis). PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 19:39, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Appropriate?

Regarding this reversion, I'll let it pass without argument. I don't want to involve myself any further in a discussion in which I was not involved. Indeed, I'm withholding my opinion on the matter of whether the correct term is or isn't "federal subject".

The reason I commented out the section, though, was because I didn't consider it a neutral description of the topic. Additionally, I don't agree that it is appropriate, or useful, to discuss the issue in the article, as apparently suggested in the edit summary of that reversion.

I'll leave it up to the editors of this article how to proceed but I urge everyone here to keep the discussion on the talk page and avoid letting it spill over into the article as biased material. ClaretAsh 13:38, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I completely agree. A handful of examples to illustrate UN usage is OK, but the statement that other sources are using the term "federal subject" is marked as "citation needed"? Really? And the rest of the sources are nothing but opinions of individual translators? If this all isn't a combination of WP:UNDUE, WP:OR, and WP:SYNTH, I don't know what is. I did not remove the section, but I edited it to at least match what the sources being cited are saying. Also, if not removed, it should probably be moved down to the bottom of the page.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); January 28, 2012; 14:11 (UTC)
We lack consensus on the correct or best translation of the Russian word. Apparently we are stuck with "Subjects" because that was used here first, but certainly some discussion in the article of alternative translations is appropriate, and this discussion should be early in the article given how misleading some feel "Subjects" is as a "translation". The reader should be aware that there are alternative translations. I think that discussion in the article can be improved; it should be short, and factually cite the alternative translation, but it should be there. cwmacdougall, January 28, 2012; 16:43 (UTC)
No, we do not stick with "subjects" because this term "was used here first", but because this is the term that's used by the academia more often than any other alternative (as shown in the RM thread above). Discussions of terminology in the articles are, of course, appropriate, but only when they are sourced to works that discuss the use of the terminology, not to random documents that happen to use one variant or another. For example, picking a few UN documents to demonstrate the usage of a term (as opposed to the discussion of the usage of a term) is original research, and combining them with opinions of individual translators hand-picked to slant the discussion in a certain direction is synthesis. The bottom line is that having a section on terminology is useful in this article, but the section in its current form is not. Yes, it is OK to inform the readers about alternative translations (and the lead already does just that, although it only lists one alternative), but it is not OK to pick an "appropriate" translation based on your own or someone else's individual preferences and force feed it to the reader. Do you not understand the difference? It is not our job as Wikipedians to determine the "correct" or "best" translation; our job is to assess the existing sources in this area of knowledge and pick the term those sources use most often. That the term is perceived by some as "incorrect" is completely irrelevant.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); January 28, 2012; 17:20 (UTC)
No - Mr. Cline in adjudicating said there was no concensus for a change, i.e. the status quo ruled. But there is no consensus for the status quo either; your dubious arguments for "subjects" were certainly not accepted by a consensus. This dispute, which is well sourced, not original research, should be discussed in the article. That is a reasonable compromise. cwmacdougall, January 28, 2012; 19:27 (UTC)
Well, your dubious argument that the term "subjects" as used here is "incorrect" is certainly not accepted by a consensus either, so why should it be given preferential treatment? At any rate, the discussions are supposed to be confined to the talk pages; that's what we have the talk pages for! Not to mention that flat out discarding an opposing party's (substantiated!) arguments is, well, not actually an argument. I have explained why I believe that the sources are unacceptable and why the section in its current form constitutes original research and synthesis; do you care to explain why you think it does not? Wishing so does not make it so; you can't keep parroting "it isn't it isn't it isn't" and expect the other party to be magically convinced. With that in mind, would you please kindly explain how the opinions of two translators (one of which is from a primary source and the other not the topic discussed by the source being used) and an observation of the term usage in a translation by the Russian government are reliable sources and how combining them to advance a certain point of view is not synthesis?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); January 30, 2012; 14:58 (UTC)

Igels, we discussed this back and forth without reaching a consensus and further discussion appears pointless. Where there is no consensus for a particular view, then the appropriate step is to discuss both in the article, so readers can be aware that differing views exist. cwmacdougall, January 30, 2012; 16:53 (UTC)

Repetition

There's a huge amount of repetition in the article. We have:

  1. a map colour-coded by type of subject, with each subject labelled by name or with a number, and with a brief explanation of the types of subject;
  2. a second map, with each subject labelled by number;
  3. a list of all the subjects, giving the type of each;
  4. a list and map of all the oblasts;
  5. a list and map of all the krais;
  6. a list and map of the two federal cities;
  7. a list and map of the single autonomous oblast.

I propose that 4–7 are completely redundant and should be removed from the article. The location and distribution of the different types of subject are clear from map 1 and the lists of each type of subject are clear from table 3. Ideally, 1 and 2 should be combined into a single map that gives the number of each subject and is colour-coded by type. As a first step, does anyone object to the deletion of 4–7? Dricherby (talk) 13:18, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Nobody objected so I went ahead and removed 4–7. If somebody could combine the two maps, that would be great. Dricherby (talk) 11:11, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

What laws regulate how these subjects work?

In September 2004, Putin first proposed (Washington Post) that governors should be appointed (by the president) and not elected (by citizens of each oblast). This must be written in some federal law that regulates how the federal subjects work. This article should probably have a section that describes such laws. --LA2 (talk) 06:59, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

As for now the regions are free to choose whether the governor is directly elected by the citizens, or elected/appointed by the local legislature after an agreement with the president is reached. I have no data about how many regions have direct elections, but I suppose most of them. After checking some news websites, it seems the "inderect procedure" is mostly concentrated in North Caucasus. Hellerick (talk) 01:53, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Here is the current version of the law regulating the gubernatorial elections: [9] Hellerick (talk) 03:56, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Map needs an update

The maps at Federal cities of Russia and Republics of Russia have long been updated to show the Crimea. This article's graphics should have continuity with the others. -Kudzu1 (talk) 07:15, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Russian regions fertility rate needs to be updated

The data for Fertility rate by subject is out for Russia in 2014 on Rosstat, we need someone who can read Russian to update the date on the List of federal subjects of Russia by total fertility rate 58.179.89.117 (talk) 13:20, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Merge

I suggest that the list of federal subjects of Russia is merged into this page. The list portion was split out into a template in January 2009 with no reason given and no discussion; the template was subsequently transcluded into this page. The template was listified recently by Derianus (talk · contribs), which is a step in the right direction, but it still remains unclear why the list portion should be kept separate from the descriptive part. I see no compelling reason to keep it separate. Adding a lede and content to the list of federal subjects of Russia, to make it conform with the WP:LIST requirements, will simply result in content being duplicated across two pages.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); October 20, 2014; 14:26 (UTC)

I tend to agree. Seeking for a list of the federal subjects seems to be the most obvious reason why anybody would want to visit page titled 'Federal subjects' in the first place. Hellerick (talk) 16:38, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Sounds reasonable.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:43, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes, that makes sense. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 09:07, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Strongly disagree, and unfortunately I lost my very detailed argument in a browser crash. I'm a former tech writer & editor who became too disabled to work, and both my experience and (ironically) my disability gave me reasons to disagree. But, I can't do any more today and I don't know if I'll be able to come back. I'll try. --Geekdiva (talk) 03:15, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
While I sympathize with your circumstances (which I can only imagine, of course), note that Wikipedia policies contain no recommendations for splitting the raw lists and the content into separate pages for the purpose of improving accessibility to people with disabilities. However, if you could elaborate your point of view in more detail when you get another chance, that would be appreciated. Thanks.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); November 6, 2014; 13:02 (UTC)

Maybe some people don't understand the difference in audience here? Spanish Wikipedia has lists often as annex. So, one has encyclopedic articles, and one has gazetteer lists. So, there can be reasons for both, but to claim it is (1) unclear why the list should be kept outside, or that (2) seeking for a list seems to be the most obvious reason why anybody would want to visit a page "federal subjects" in the first place, only shows that (1)claim authors are unclear about the audience and (2) miss the most obvious why one might go to an article "federal subjects" - namely to read about the "federal subjects". As for the list, which one, there are currently listed 11 lists.

It's also telling, if editors deem the most important part of an article a list. Instead there could be more information about the federal subjects in general.

Why can Russia not have it like the USA? Is there some anti-Russian bias here? There is "U.S. state" and there is Lists of U.S. state topics. There is County (United States) and there is Lists of counties in the United States. Derianus (talk) 05:29, 27 October 2014 (UTC)Blocked sockpuppet--Ymblanter (talk) 09:26, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Why compare as if it were a competition? Wikipedia started out as a US project and has, to my mind, developed in an extremely convoluted manner. Nevertheless, it is the English language Wikipedia and, therefore, develops to accommodate native English speaking nations and territories. Does the US have such complex representation in other language Wikipedias as it does in English Wikipedia? I believe that the WP:KISS principle is a good rule of thumb and preferable to an unintuitive cross-referencing system. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 09:07, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
What Iryna said, plus the lists of counties in the United States is an extremely long list (indeed, the page is not even set up as a list but as an index; although there is also a list of United States counties and county equivalents, which exists separately for reasons that are not immediately obvious). The list of federal subjects of Russia, on the other hand, is relatively compact and can be merged here painlessly. Compare that to the situation with the list of districts in Russia and the districts of Russia article (which you created)—there, it makes perfect sense to keep the pages separate (and indeed, no one has complained yet); both because the actual list is very long and because it covers only the administrative districts (while the article provides an overview of other entities known as "district").—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); October 27, 2014; 15:53 (UTC)

@Iryna - thanks for confirming the the cultural bias (accommodate native English speaking nations and territories). For me this is a very arrogant approach. @Ezhiki "The list of federal subjects of Russia" - that I would call deceiving. You know that there are more than one list. Derianus (talk) 03:00, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I will ask you, yet again, to please desist from your WP:BATTLEGROUND approach to discussions. Yes, this is English language Wikipedia, therefore sources and information have an inbuilt bias towards native English speaking readers and native English speaking subject matter. It seems that you want your cake and to eat it, too. On the one hand, you're pushing what you believe to be some form of 'intuitive' English nomenclature onto oblasts; on the other hand you're indignated by the idea that English Wikipedia should conform to representing the English speaking world. Whatever approach is favoured gives you grounds to cry 'prejudice', 'bias' and 'harassment'. What is your overview for the presentation of territories in the ex-Soviet bloc? Every time I think I've comprehended what it is that you're trying to accomplish, you turn around and seem to turn it into another issue. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:18, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Derianus, there is only one main list of federal subjects. The rest of them are "lists of federal subjects by XXX" (GDP, population, etc.). I don't see anyone proposing to merge those, nor should they be.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); October 29, 2014; 11:59 (UTC)


I came to this page looking for a list of Russia's political subdivisions by clicking in the "Subdivisions assigned codes" column of the "RU" line of the table of ISO 3166-1 codes at the ISO 3166-2 page. Despite the fact that there are instructions to click on each 3166-1 code to see a list of that country's 3166-2 codes, the fact that every other link in the Subdivisions column on which I've clicked so far gave me a list of the country's subdivisions makes the link that brought me here an inconsistency. So if you don't go ahead with the merger, it would be wise to examine all of the links to this page so you could redirect those that should be links to the list, especially links created before January 2009. HankW512 (talk) 08:22, 10 March 2015 (UTC)


There appears to be a vague consensus here to merge these articles. If no one objects I will go ahead and do this in the near future. Zangar (talk) 14:44, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Merge completed. Zangar (talk) 15:50, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Correct translation

"Krai", "oblast", "okrug" and "respublika" is not proper nouns and should be translated corectly accordingly as "Region", "Province", "District" and "Republic" (wich actually done for "respublika"). Even in russian the category of Subject ("oblast") spelled with a lowercase letter. Bearg (talk)

How they are spelled in Russian is not a good argument. What matters is what are the most common usage in English.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:42, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
You are mixing up the concepts of translation and transliteration (and it's not entirely clear what you mean by "proper nouns" in your comment—proper nouns, or just "words used in English"?). "Respublika" is not used precisely because it's not an English word but a mere transliteration of the Russian word, but the rest are actually loanwords easily found in any respectable dictionary. Plus, there is no such thing as one "correct translation"; there is always a set of acceptable alternatives to choose from. "Region", "province", "district" are all acceptable (although by no means exclusive) translations of the corresponding Russian terms, sure, but the consensus has been not to use them due to their vagueness and ambiguity. Wikipedia deals with the sum of all human knowledge, so using equally acceptable but more specific terms is preferable to using generic terms which, in the big picture, tend to confuse matters more than they clarify them. It's not like the Russian system of territorial organization is intuitive and easy to understand (even for natives), so every little bit of additional specificity helps. And a Yaroslav pointed out above, these specific terms are indeed preferred in academic literature which deals directly with the subject of territorial organization of Russia (as opposed to mere side references in works on other topics, where more generic terms tend to be used).—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); September 18, 2015; 13:22 (UTC)

I am copypasting myself from the Kamchatka Krai article.

I think I did not phrase it correctly myself. It is not about an established term, it is about an established way of representing names in the translation science. The obsolete Kamchatskaya Oblast is a good example, because Google search for the exact match gives ~20,000 for "Kamchatka Oblast" and over 100,000 for "Kamchatskaya Oblast". Now, with Krai, it may be different simply because the Wikipedia has had it for a while - there are tons of websites copying information from Wiki automatically and manually and something from Wikipedia easily gets prevalent in the global informational space. And it is exactly why it is important for Wikipedia to have things corrected.
There is one well known example of a foreign-origin name, such as Notre-Dame de Paris - it inherits the spelling and even the pronunciation both in English and in Russian. If you'd say it "Notre-Dame de Париж", somebody would likely try to correct you. Now what the hell is "Krai"? There is no "Krai" or "Oblast" in English language, as well as there is no "de" in English and in Russian. It is only valid as a part of the name. Why bother carrying over "Krai" into English language if the origin of the name is not retained? It gives birth to a linguistical freak "Kamchatka Krai" that is not correct in English (because there is no "Krai" in English) and it is not correct in Russian - nobody says "Камчатка край"! Its just plain illiteracy. The form Kamchatka is fine as long as it used with proper English word like "state" or "region".
About the usage. People tend to use names of things in the language of origin to show respect towards a foreign culture. It is quite typical to read in travel notes something like "in Osaka, we had some teriyaki" or "we drove Landstraße". Now, when somebody who does not know Russian, comes across such thing as "Kamchatka Krai", he might pick it up and use it exactly for that reason - because of "Krai" it gives the impression of something Russian, but it is not.
Let me finish this with a quote from English Style Guide - A handbook for authors and translators in the European Commission - it is very clear on the subject: "5.18 Names of regions. Regional names fall into three types. - Administrative units. Anglicise only those names with translations in the Country Compendium. Other names should be left in the native spelling, without inverted commas.". It is a standard for translation.

I believe it is very important to review all of the federal subjects names for Wikipedia to start transmitting the correct versions into the world. Not mentioning the fact, that someone in business might get a lawsuit because of the wrong translation.Nitekatt (talk) 17:16, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Several things are wrong about this kind of reasoning. First off, Wikipedia is not an application of "translation science". We have very specific guidelines which prescribe using "common English names" whenever one exists. Where one does not exist, then, for the languages with a non-Latin alphabet at least, transliteration is used. Second, throwing generic inquiries at google is a good starting point, but the results are not to be taken at face value. Editorial judgement is a necessary component when working with raw search result sets. The quality of the sources matters, not the raw quantity. Third, you are absolutely wrong about there being no "oblast" and "krai" in the English language. These are obscure loanwords, but loanwords they are, included, for example, in the OED and Merriam-Webster unabridged and used in precisely this sort of context—academic information about the political and administrative structure of Russia. Obviously not every Russian transliterated word makes the cut, but these terms did. It has thus been a long-standing consensus to use these more precise terms overly their generic and oft-ambiguous equivalents (such as "region" or "territory"). The usage is either clarified on the first use and/or a link is included to the main entry, so readers are seldom left guessing as to the meaning. All in all, neither "krai" nor "oblast" are transliterations here, they are perfectly acceptable English loanwords. That leaves the proper name part, and on the high level "common English names" of those normally exist. On the low levels, yes, there transliteration rules supreme. "Kamchatka Oblast", "Kamchatka Krai", "(Cityname) Oblast", etc. may look strange to some, but as any search would confirm, there are plenty of quality academic sources which use this convention. Britannica, a fellow encyclopedia, uses "Kamchatka Kray" as the title of their article, for example. Have you had a chance to accuse them of illiteracy yet? :)
Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that using "Kamchatsky Krai" is incorrect. It isn't. Transliteration is a perfectly valid alternative way to handle the names of the Russian federal subjects. It just happens that Wikipedia standardized on a different convention, and there really is no compelling reason to switch to an alternative standard. There are many things which can be done many ways, and it's important to pick the best way, but it's also important to recognize that sometimes there is no "best" way and to settle on something acceptable, if only for consistency sake.
And, as a bonus, I should point out that modern federal subjects are not "administrative units". No more than the US states are. They are political entities, and as such, additional considerations are not only warranted, but necessary.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); November 10, 2016; 14:40 (UTC)
What you are trying to say is that Wikipedia's policy is different from the general approach to translation, however, having examined the naming policy thoroughly, I can say that it is nearly exactly the same to what a properly educated translator would do.
We can read: "A name can be considered as widely accepted if a neutral and reliable source states: "X is the name most often used for this entity"." That is very clear and obvious requirement to qualify as a widely accepted name. Does that really exist for anything except Moscow, Saint Petersburg and Crimea?
Next: "Without such an assertion, the following sources may be helpful in establishing a widely accepted name.". It is precisely that what we have. Sources that may. And these "sources that may be helpful" appear to be controversial. We have those that may to be following one style and those that may to be following another.
"Use English" says: "If no name can be shown to be widely accepted in English, use the local name.". Search for "Moscow Oblast" and "Moskovskaya Oblast" will give approximately the same number of results. Pretty much the same for all other subjects.
Finally, the Article Titles article says: "If there are too few reliable English-language sources to constitute an established usage, follow the conventions of the language appropriate to the subject (German for German politicians, Portuguese for Brazilian towns, and so on). For lesser known geographical objects or structures with few reliable English sources, follow the translation convention, if any, used for well known objects or structures of the same type". Over 80% of Russia's subjects are exactly the "lesser known geographical objects", in fact, as political entities they are nearly nonexistent in the English-speaking world. And both the "conventions of the language" and "translation convention" point at proper, complete transliteration as a solution.
As for the academic usage of "krai" and "oblast" in English, yes, it is certainly present, and the kind of sources that have it tend to follow the transliteration rule, e.g. US Board on Geographic Names.
Also, you might be interested to learn that there is very consistent approach to the problem on the international level - United Nations Group of Experts on Geographical Names recommends to reduce the number of exonyms and avoid introducing new ones, which is reflected in a whole number of UN resolutions (I/10, II/28, II/29, II/31, II/35, II/38, III/18, III/19, IV/20, V/13). Exonyms are recognized as something bad for international communication. I believe what they say at their meetings is the same as what I said here previously, just in more scientific and diplomatic manner. And the UNGEGN recommendations are something that is accepted on the government level by major English-speaking countries.
P. S. Britannica? Yes, they have a number of errors. They are certainly in decline, which affects the quality of information, since they stopped to publish a printed version.
Nitekatt (talk) 13:47, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Very nice link from the UK on the topic https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/433384/Russia-Administrative_Divisions.pdf
You have a number of good points, yes, but two most important things to keep in mind are a) UNGEGN practices and government regulations are not normally considered an ideal model to follow for the Wikipedia purposes. We are not in the business of "international communications", we are a tertiary reference work where any unclear term can easily be looked up. Case in point (coming straight out of your nice link from the UK above): after stating that Russian government English-language websites in fact use anglicised forms for the federal subjects (e.g. Astrakhan Oblast), it goes on recognizing that these might be usefully be used for reference purposes in English-language text. Which is precisely what English Wikipedia is doing now.
b) most Wikipedia policies are not free of abundant grey areas, WP:AT being one such policy. What constitutes a "lesser known geographic object" is often a matter of debate subject to consensus, and thus far the consensus have been leaning to recognizing the Russian federal subjects as major (if poorly covered) entities for which using transliteration would not be the best solution. Consensus can change, yes, and I recognize that without raising the questions the way you are doing here a change can go undetected, but this is not a subject matter which generates a lot of interest from the general public, so, as usual in such cases, Wikipedia leans on the conservative side and continues following the practices already established. I'm not saying your ideas should be dismissed out of hand, far from it, but unless you can garner support of at least a few other Wikipedians who totally agree that we should transliterate Russian federal subject names instead of anglicizing them (and who hopefully understand the subject at any depth and are not just drive-by !voters), we can go at this till cows come home with nothing really changing :) Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); December 2, 2016; 17:20 (UTC)

Maps

The maps shown in the article need updating to include the two new federal subjects in the Crimea. 86.148.176.51 (talk) 09:12, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to see some language included to indicate that the status of these new federal subjects is disputed by a sizable portion of the international community.

Strictly speaking, the foreign powers can dispute the Russian sovereignty over the territory, but not its status with the federation: the federal organization of the country is the inner issue of Russia and does not need any international recognition. The controversial situation is already described with the line "although the two most recently added subjects are internationally recognized as part of Ukraine". Hellerick (talk) 04:12, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
On this map there should not be Crimea, because it is not recognized by international community as a part of Russian federation. It can be mentioned somewhere in the article that Russia considers crime as a part of its federation and have some status whiting federation, but creating maps with Crimea under Russian control and publishing them in Wikipedia must be strictly forbidden, at least it wont be recognized by international community as a part of Russia.--Paata Shetekauri (talk) 13:47, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
It would be great if you read the previous comment carefully and addressed it. Your edit looks like a reply while in fact not addressing (valid) points raised there.--Ymblanter (talk) 02:54, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
Sorry But I don't think that you really understand what actually point is. That was replay to previous comment. --Paata Shetekauri (talk) 08:18, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
Sure I did. It is just your reply was not to the point. Nobody here states that the international community recognizes Crimea as a part of Russia.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:09, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
Sure, but my positions is that just because Russia considers Crimea as a part of Russian Federation does not mean that political maps can be changed. Russian position can be mentioned, but not more. Because of Russian position political maps of countries must not be represented in incorrect ways.--Paata Shetekauri (talk) 17:27, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
Again, nobody said that the annexation of Crimea was internationally recognized. Still, within the Russian Federation, Crimea includes two federal subjects, and that's the topic of this article, hence they must be represented. — JFG talk 17:57, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
From my point of view, such depiction of Russian federation is formalization (or at least trying) of Russian federations illegal clime over Crimea. Worst in this is that Wikipedia is used in political aims--Paata Shetekauri (talk) 07:39, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
No. Wikipedia reflects facts, as reported by reliable sources. The two Crimean federal subjects exist; whether any Wikipedian likes this fact or dislikes it is irrelevant. — JFG talk 08:30, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
The problem is that those two federation subjects actually don't exist, whether any Wikipedian likes this fact or dislikes it :). One countries illegal clime do not means that political map of the world can be changed.--Paata Shetekauri (talk) 12:48, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
Your argument depends on whether the word "exists" means "is considered by everybody to exist". Reminds me of what the definition of "is" is… — JFG talk 18:25, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
Good point :) --Paata Shetekauri (talk) 11:31, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Federal subjects of Russia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:43, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Federal subjects of Russia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:37, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

List and map mistakes

I believe that Kostroma and Ivanovo oblasts are swapped in the List section and map. The same happens with the republics of Ingushetia and North Ossetia-Alania. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rcigala (talk • contribs) 15:33, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Kostroma and Ivanovo Oblasts are indeed swapped on the map, thanks. For the rest, I believe it is fine.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:36, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

From south to north, the republics are: Dagestan, Chechenya, Ingushetia and North Ossetia. On the map I see them swapped. Ingushetia should be what is now listed #15 (the smaller one) and then North-Ossetia, #6. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rcigala (talk • contribs) 15:44, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

They do not fit to the map, and the number is outside. The number is 15 for North Ossetia, which is correct.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:49, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:53, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Improving the table

I am currenly improving the table 2600:1700:6180:6290:5010:9EB9:D3A7:DB33 (talk) 22:01, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Управление субъектами

Области не имеют конституции. Они имеют свой устав, выполняющий ее роль. 176.59.208.96 (talk) 13:16, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Crimea

Crimea has no titular nationality. [10] "All have titular nationalities except for occupied Crimea." By Paul Goble, the foremost expert on Russian regions.

It was never formed with one in mind, regardless of the republic's official languages. ProjectHorizons (talk) 17:02, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

It has three official languages though, they are written in the Constitution. Titular nationalities are not written in any constitution of any republic. Of course it does not mean that in practice Ukrainian or Crimean Tatar has any status, but on paper it does. Ymblanter (talk) 18:53, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Siding with aggression

Wikipedia in general, and this article specifically is siding with the Russian war of aggression against Ukraine. The inclusion of the partially occupied Ukrainian oblasts of Kherson, Zaporizhzhia, Donetsk, and Luhansk, as well as the inclusion of Sevastopol as a ‘city of federal importance’ shows that Wikipedia has no respect for Ukrainian sovereignty or the UN Charter. I will no be making any donations to Wikipedia. Conorbuckley (talk) 00:49, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

They are clearly described as internationally unrecognized. This is not the place to WP:RGW and pretend nothing has happened. Mellk (talk) 01:20, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
Why is this not the place? I am not pretending nothing has happened. Quite the contrary. 124.189.176.19 (talk) 12:32, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

The Table of Subjects is a mess.

Looking at the table it is a mess as I have seen multiple times that a krai has cut off the section for oblast for no apparent reason. Also the Pskov Oblast has a Seperator (Both top and bottom) in the column that says its subject type, despite the fact that below it is more oblasts. FusionSub (talk) 12:39, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Fix Zaporizhzhia's Spelling

Zaporizhzhia is spelt wrong on the box that list the number of federal subjects by type of federal subject. StrawWord298944 (talk) 23:50, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

The Russian language spells the name of the federal subject slightly differently from Ukrainian. Here, a transliteration of the Russian spelling is used, as we are talking about the federal subjects of the Russian Federation as claimed by Russia. 108.160.120.57 (talk) 21:30, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
I have changed the spellings of Ukrainian place names to their main-article spellings.[11] Imposing Russian spellings here because of a military invasion and occupation is inappropriate: not supported by the sources nor any guidelines. Doing so resembles imposing a Kremlin POV (see WP:NPOV) or attempting to WP:RGW. —Michael Z. 16:53, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 April 2023

No Ukrainian land has been internationally recognized ever since Russians illegally occupied Crimea and parts of Donets’k and Luhans’k back in 2014. Please remove all illegally occupied lands of Ukraine from this wiki page in order to stop promoting russian Nazism and terrorism nowadays. This wiki page is basically helping russian propaganda spread misinformation. I am donating to Wikipedia not to kill my relatives in Ukraine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:43B0:39C0:79C9:146A:6C55:D332 (talk) 21:35, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cambial — foliar❧ 21:43, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

List of federal subjects suggestion for lines 60-74

Instead of having the "oblast" spanning 1 line for Pskov Oblast and then "oblast" spanning 14 lines from Rostov Oblast to Chelyabinsk Oblast we could just have "oblast" spanning 15 lines from Pskov to Chelyabinsk.
Minor edit but I don't have the rights to do it, thanks in advance TheÆtherPlayer (talk) 12:21, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 July 2023

Change Russian occupied regions to part of Ukraine 2601:441:8201:9680:8924:F9A9:B03C:23BE (talk) 15:37, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. — kashmīrī TALK 20:13, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Infobox

MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE is unambiguous and crystal clear: the infobox is for key facts, not the aspirations of a tyrant. Key facts require reliable sources. Do not add unsourced, unsourceable, and unsupported content to the infobox. Cambial — foliar❧ 20:06, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

The fact that Russia considers these territories integral parts of itself is a key fact. The policy makes no mention of not including controversy or "aspirations of tyrants". It is evidently not "unambiguous" if the contrary for disputed territory is the norm for infoboxes: the area of Somaliland is shown claimed by Somalia in its infobox, Taiwan is shown claimed by China, the Falklands is shown claimed by Argentina, south-eastern Ukraine is shown claimed by Russia.

Also, how is it "unsourced" and "unsourceable"? It has been widely reported in WP:RS that Russia has, in its own view, annexed these territories it occupies. Did you mean no RS outright says that the territories are part of Russia? That is not necessary to acknowledge that Russia claims it. To omit the claims because they are against our (rightful) sensibilities means we are WP:RGW and precisely not following WP:RS. --128.240.225.29 (talk) 13:11, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

This is about federal subjects of Russia. Thus a part of Ukraine, about which the Russian government has expressed the view that it is part of its territory, does not become a fact, key or otherwise. Unsourced: because it does not have a source supporting it. Unsourceable: because no reliable secondary sources state that these are part of Russia. We already acknowledge Russia claims it in the body of the article. The claims are omitted from the facts not because they are against anyone's "sensibilities"; they are omitted because one government's opinion is not a fact. Cambial — foliar❧ 14:27, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
Russian law considers these areas as federal subjects. That's an objective fact. We list Tibet as a province of China, even though it was an illegal land grab back then. Same with regards to the countless captured territories throughout history. We may of course disagree with ethics or legality of land grabs worldwide, however we are obliged to reflect the reality – and here, the reality is that there exist Russian federal subjects called Donetsk Republic, Luhansk Republic and Republic of Crimea. As much as we may dislike this, Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a soapbox. — kashmīrī TALK 17:04, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
Well, what Russian law considers is not objective facts, and these don’t quite fully exist, do they?
Legally, Russian law has no jurisdiction in Ukraine. Politically, these political entities are not internationally recognized as territory of Russia. And de facto, Russia’s illegal invasion force (“SMO”) is so far inadequate to impose this “reality.”
The Kremlin could write into the Russian constitution that it has “annexed” Newark, New Jersey today, but that wouldn’t be any reality either, only another example of Kremlin POV, which has been labelled colonial and fascist by experts.
WP:NPOV means that this must not be presented as objective facts.  —Michael Z. 15:37, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Regions of Ukraine in infoboxes on Russia

A discussion on a closely related topic may interest watchers of this page at Talk:Republics of Russia. There is a discussion as to whether a calculated total including the view of the Kremlin on the Donetsk and Luhansk regions of Ukraine should be included in the infobox and opening. Cambial — foliar❧ 11:03, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Federal_subjects_of_Russia/Archive_2&oldid=1244174157"